Covington v. Butcher
171 N.E.3d 488
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- On March 3, 2018, Venesia Covington was struck and injured when a vehicle entered her driveway and a collision involving two other vehicles propelled one onto her property. Covington sued David Butcher (driver of the southbound vehicle) and co-defendant Jordan Walker (driver of the SUV turning left into the driveway).
- Deposition evidence: Covington saw Walker slow and begin a left turn into her driveway and did not see Butcher prior to impact; Butcher testified Walker made a sudden left turn into his lane and he was struck; Walker received a traffic citation.
- Covington alleged Butcher was negligent by driving while intoxicated, speeding, and failing to maintain an assured clear distance; she moved for summary judgment. Butcher filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, arguing depositions showed Walker’s conduct caused the crash.
- The trial court granted Butcher’s motion and denied Covington’s; Covington appealed. The appeals court conducted de novo review of the summary judgment record.
- The court found Covington submitted no admissible evidence showing Butcher’s intoxication, unlawful speed, or violation of assured clear distance; the undisputed deposition testimony pointed to Walker’s left turn as the sole proximate cause. Summary judgment for Butcher was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper disposition on cross-motions for summary judgment / proximate cause | Covington: Butcher was negligent (intoxication, speeding, failure to maintain distance) and caused or contributed to her injury | Butcher: Deposition testimony shows Walker’s left turn into oncoming lane was sole proximate cause; no triable issue about Butcher’s negligence | Court: Grant for Butcher — Walker’s failure to yield was sole proximate cause; no genuine issue re: Butcher’s negligence |
| Violation of R.C. 4511.21 (assured clear distance) | Covington: Butcher failed to maintain assured clear distance ahead | Butcher: The object (Walker’s vehicle) was not stationary nor moving in same direction; it turned into his lane and did not ‘‘suddenly appear’’ in a way that fits the statute | Court: No violation shown — facts preclude R.C. 4511.21 claim against Butcher |
| Intoxication at time of collision | Covington: Butcher was intoxicated; prior OMVI conviction supports inference | Butcher: No admissible evidence (no BAC, no citation from crash), he denied drinking that day | Court: Insufficient admissible evidence to create genuine fact issue; bare allegation insufficient |
| Admissibility and expert proof (medical/scientific records, plaintiff testimony as expert) | Covington: Submitted medical/scientific documents and a declaration asserting competency to interpret them and opine on BAC | Butcher: Documents unauthenticated, plaintiff not qualified to offer expert opinions; many filings unsworn/inadmissible | Court: Documents not properly authenticated; Covington not competent to offer expert BAC opinion; such evidence not considered on summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 64 (court description of summary judgment standard)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (burden-shifting framework for summary judgment)
- Pond v. Leslein, 72 Ohio St.3d 50 (elements for assured clear distance analysis)
- Tokles & Son, Inc. v. Midwestern Indemn. Co., 65 Ohio St.3d 621 (only admissible evidence may be considered on summary judgment)
- Maust v. Bank One Columbus, N.A., 83 Ohio App.3d 103 (appellate de novo review standard for summary judgment)
- Green v. B.F. Goodrich Co., 85 Ohio App.3d 223 (unsworn, unauthenticated documents lack evidentiary value on summary judgment)